Slashdot Mirror

We just got done with a well-constructed, well-reasoned, well-executed protest against SOPA and PIPA, and we killed those bills dead as a *direct result*.

That simply has not happened.

The sponsor of SOPA has recently also pushed new anti-childpornography laws through the house and congress, in preparation for attaching SOPA as a rider.

He has already admitted the ONLY problem with the last SOPA was that he let the public know about it, giving them time to express their dislike, and has stated he learned from that mistake.

As in, the damaging effects, the destruction it will cause, and the fact people are against it, he doesn't see any of that as a problem. Only that the public had time to counter it.

This time next year, SOPA *WILL* be law.

* Note I am not arguing in favor of DDoS either. You are quite right in that such attacks have not helped anything one bit, and are not part of any functioning solution.

Here's the scariest thing I've read: Lamar Smith is also the sponsor of H.R. 1981 Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&). What someone on Reddit suggested might happen (and I see as all too plausible) is that they will modify the text of SOPA/PIPA a bit and tack it on to this bill.

He's already slipping in the kiddie porn card. Read his response.

Perhaps SOPA needs to apply to credit card companies instead of web sites.

It does. Read section 103.

Pertinent part:

Denying U.S. Financial Support of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property-

                (1) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS- Except in the case of an effective counter notification pursuant to paragraph (5), a payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after delivery of a notification under paragraph (4), that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification

Here's the scariest thing I've read: Lamar Smith is also the sponsor of H.R. 1981 Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&). What someone on Reddit suggested might happen (and I see as all too plausible) is that they will modify the text of SOPA/PIPA a bit and tack it on to this bill. If that happens, it is going to pass in a landslide because no one wants to be seen as supporting child pornography. They will pass this bill without even reading it. We HAVE to keep on top of this and make sure that they don't try to sneak one by us. This is just the beginning, and it is going to get very ugly.

While we're on the general topic, I'd like to remind folks about another bill being considered, the Research Works Act. Previously covered on Slashdot here, the act is being pushed by the journal industry, and would reverse the current requirement that papers resulting from federally funded research be freely available to the public.

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Has anybody suggested asking the current political candidates their views on SOPA? If you live in the US, and your Congressperson is listed as a Co-sponsor of the bill, or listed as an opponent of the bill, have you contacted them to voice your opinion? Votes are all that matters to politicians. A few hundred calls/emails to their office telling them that this is a flawed bill, and it WILL result in your vote going to their opponent can quickly change their minds on what matters to them.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@P
That's the current list of SOPA co-sponsors.

CALEA requires interception and not backdoor access to any particular device. It is the equivalent of a wiretap. Interception is done on the network itself and the data is forwarded to the requesting law enforcement agency.

And for those who are curious, here's H.R. 4922, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act", which became Public Law 103-414 (which does not appear to be on any of the Government Printing Office sites for Public Laws).

Please, please, PLEASE stop spreading this lie. We can't run a country based on false information.

The NDAA is a military spending bill. It gets passed every year. For several years it has allowed the military to detain members of Al Qaeda, and no one had a problem with this. In the latest version, this was expanded to cover members of other terrorists organizations, but it still states that it cannot be applied to United States citizens or immigrants.

What Section 1021, subsection (e), of H.R. 1540 as enrolled says is

Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

which doesn't explicitly say it cannot be applied to US citizens etc.. The question is what "existing law or authorities" say. Senator Carl Levin quoted the Supreme Court as saying "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.", which comes from the O'Connor/Rehnquist/Kennedy/Breyer opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. On the other hand, they also say "It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities.", but if active hostilities continue until we've defeated "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons", who knows when they'll cease.

A proper library automation system can save considerable time on an ongoing basis and allow you to actually do what you describe with minimal overall effort.

Such a system would have NISO Z39.50 protocol client support for downloading and working with machine readable cataloguing, MARC, records well catalogued at another library for copy cataloguing to populate the records of an automated library system. Downloading records over Z39.50 directly from most libraries with Z39.50 servers, including the Library of Congress, is free and does not generally involve copyright issues as cataloguing records are almost entirely mere collections of facts prepared according to cataloguing rules.

Such a system would also have a degree of granular permissions to support automated self-checkout with a bar code scanner without also giving every user permission to erase the database. Self-checkout systems are often currently assumed to be RFID based, however, systems using a bar code scanner which are much cheaper to implement should be supported for self-checkout. The cheapest solution is to buy sheets of simple bar codes and obtain a used bar code scanner on Ebay. Using product bar codes already printed on material may have inconsistent encoding and non-unique numbers.

Check the support and possible extra price for such features in any candidate system.

1. Set Up Work.

Real work is often required for anything worth having.

Some minimal assistance from a professional librarian, who may be a member of your church or otherwise available in the community, would be invaluable help at least to start. Most library automation systems support configuration options designed for use by people who are not professional librarians but such support would not negate the great value of obtaining some minimal assistance of a professional librarian at the outset. Check the support for non-professional configuration.

The complexity of setting up such software may entail either paying a library support company to set up the software; or at least a few days of time from someone sufficiently familiar with Unix administration willing to read the documentation and seek answers on the mailing lists to set up a free software library automation system without using a professional support company. Some set up complexity might be avoided by using an implementation hosted by a library support company but that would involve a long term support contract which could be avoided with sufficient initial set up effort.

2. Lists of Library Automation Systems.

There is no single source of library automation system options which is comprehensive and up to date.

A library automation system is referred to as an integrated library system, ILS, in the US and a library management system, LMS, in many other English language countries.

2.1. Library of Congress List.

The Library of Congress maintains a list of automation systems which function with MARC records which includes some systems which are not comprehensive library automation systems, http://www.loc.gov/marc/marcsysvend.html .

2.2. Library Technology Guides List.

Library Technology Guides maintains a list of library automation system companies. Library automation companies. - http://www.librarytechnology.org/companies.pl . - In Library technology guides / maintained by Marshall Breeding. - http://www.librarytechnology.org/ .

2.3. Library Journal Guide.

Library Journal publishes an annual overview of the library automation system market. Automation Marketplace 2011 : The New Frontier / by Marshall Breeding. - In Library Journal. - April 1, 2011 - http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/889533-264/automation_marketplace_2011_the_new.html.csp .

2.4.

The Library of Congress does serve Congress. First. Then it serves the broader US Government. Then it serves the public.

So you call me 'crazy person' instead of taking back all of the nonsense that you've been spewing here.

Fact - this section, that was in version 4 of the bill is not in the final version (7) of the bill, it's skipped.

Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:

SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

        In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--

                (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

                (2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.

But he is the one who forced that section to be taken out, he is the one running the Gitmo concentration camp (as in a prison, where individuals kidnapped by a government force are placed without any lawful recourse, without ability to challenge their confinement in a court system).

Sure, it says: terrorists, bad people, Al Qaeda.

I say: anybody who a dictatorial 'elected' official deems to be a bad person, a terrorist, Al Qaeda 'member' or 'sympathizer' (or maybe a relative).

Just a matter of fact - now POTUS kills so called Al Qaeda members and their children that are US citizens found abroad, given the new power it's just going to be possible to put people into military concentration camps without any legal recourse, including US citizens, eventually those who are in US.

And I am crazy? OK, now good night, it's very late where I am.

So you call me 'crazy person' instead of taking back all of the nonsense that you've been spewing here.

Fact - this section, that was in version 4 of the bill is not in the final version (7) of the bill, it's skipped.

Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:

SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

        In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--

                (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

                (2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.

But he is the one who forced that section to be taken out, he is the one running the Gitmo concentration camp (as in a prison, where individuals kidnapped by a government force are placed without any lawful recourse, without ability to challenge their confinement in a court system).

Sure, it says: terrorists, bad people, Al Qaeda.

I say: anybody who a dictatorial 'elected' official deems to be a bad person, a terrorist, Al Qaeda 'member' or 'sympathizer' (or maybe a relative).

Just a matter of fact - now POTUS kills so called Al Qaeda members and their children that are US citizens found abroad, given the new power it's just going to be possible to put people into military concentration camps without any legal recourse, including US citizens, eventually those who are in US.

And I am crazy? OK, now good night, it's very late where I am.

Look, crazy person. The law does not contain the very thing that you are claiming that Obama forced them to include. If I say that Obama forced the Sun to turn purple, and you look at the sky and see it is yellow, would you believe me?

Here's the full text of the law.. The part you are concerned with is Section 1022.

Part A lets the military detain suspected terrorists if they:
A) Are a member of Al Qaeda or associated group that works in coordination with Al Qaeda
AND
B) Has planned or participated in an attack or attempted attack against the US or its allies

This section was modified to allow non-Al Qaeda terrorists to be detained so long as the current president writes a letter to Congress explaining why that person is dangerous.

READ THIS!!!
READ THIS!!!
However, it is still restrained by Part B which prevents the entire section from being applied to US citizens.
READ THIS!!!
READ THIS!!!

Did you read it? Check the law yourself. It is right there, in plain English, black and white, iron clad. This law does not apply to US citizens.

Now go take your meds, and stop spreading lies. I shouldn't need to do your homework for you.

Think again. This would have passed either way and if any of them claim they would have voted differently if they thought there was enough support to defeat it than I say to vote the bitches out.

" a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site."


Which then follows up with:
(2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a foreign infringing site or the foreign domain name used by such site.



It also covers:
DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.


And they technically only cover 2 site types for support (ad companies, and payment processors).


Now, IANAL, but that to me says:
1) Site has to be dedicated to promoting piracy. (violating those above codes or counterfeit goods)
2) The operator has to be notified first
3) The operator has to ignore the initial request for action


(Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:)

So, a post on a forum would not ACTUALLY be enough to shut the site down, whereas The Pirate Bay would be eligible

There have been a number of other notable manuscript digitization projects of late:

British Libraries Digitised Manuscripts
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/

"Homer Multitext" - several manuscripts including Venetus A
http://www.homermultitext.org/

The Archimedes Palimpsest
http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/

Personally I think such projects are absolutely vital to the long term preservation of these manuscripts. Modern technology makes possible the duplication of these source documents in high fidelity facsimile (Taschen in particular has published a number of fascinating editions, including Blaeu's Atlas Maior - another example would be The Book of Michael of Rhodes from MIT Press). So often works survive only as a copy of a copy of a copy, and we are left to peer through the murky glass of multiple interpertations at the far distant original author's intent. (The current definitive edition of Euclid, for example, is available to us only because of a single surviving early copy in the Vatican's library (which so far as I know has not been digitized, unfortunately, except for a couple images here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/math.html).)

We should be scanning and then printing many copies of these early works and depositing them in libraries around the world in order to help these early glimpses into our history survive (at least in SOME form, even if the originals are lost). Of course, multiple copies of the digital data is also very important, but we have no way of knowing how well digital data will survive on thousand-year time scales. Fingers crossed that we will see multiple volume facsimilie copies of Newton's notebooks (one volume for the facsimile, one for a modern translation ) on Amazon in the next few years...

If it's this cartoon, it's in the public domain in the United States since it was published before 1923. If the music on your video was published before 1923 as well, whether with the cartoon or otherwise, then it's also PD in the US regardless of the author's date of death.

If the video you uploaded is the same as the one at the Library of Congress, the claim against your video is completely bogus (I believe the works available online from LOC are all PD - anyone know otherwise?).

Nuremberg Trials Documentation

Open volume 1, and search for "Christ" without quotes. Here is the first quote, but read every occurance.

(2) The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices
incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert
the influence of the churches over the people and in particular over the youth of Germany. They avowed their
aim to eliminate the Christian churches in Germany and
sought to substitute therefor Nazi institutions and Nazi
beliefs, and pursued a program of persecution of priests,
clergy, and members of monastic orders whom they
deemed opposed to their purposes, and confiscated church
property.

Do you know why this might surprising to you? It's because you believe that all religious claims are genuine beliefs. You can't really imagine somebody deceiving about his own personal beliefs. By that logic, all of Hitler's claims about his intentions for the good of Germany were genuine, and people who express good intentions for their countries are also genuine.

I'd love to read your thoughts on all of this.

This happened more than a year ago!!!!!
http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/

So let me get this straight. Say that someone wanted to download "Who dat say chicken in dis crowd?" [parental advisory: explicit lyrics] - recording made on October 3rd, 1900 - and which comes with the following caveat:

This recording is protected by state copyright laws in the United States. The Library of Congress has obtained a license from rights holders to offer it as streamed audio only. Downloading is not permitted.

you wouldn't condone that act of blatant piracy? If so you might want to ponder the question whether you somehow lost touch with reality.

Well you can still read the bill here at thomas.loc.gov.

The bill is short so below is the full text from thomas.loc.gov. For a congressional bill it is surprisingly readable.


To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to modify provisions relating to the exemption for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Computer Professionals Update Act' or the `CPU Act'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:

`(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--

`(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;

`(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;

`(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or

`(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;

who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).'.

I second the suggestion of audio books and also recommend the Daisy consortium. My grandmother-in-law has macular degeneration that has progressed from impaired to blind over the course of a couple of years, so last year I decided to read her an audiobook for a Christmas present (it was a local history book that wasn't present in the audiobook library.) There was a lot to learn, and it took a surprising amount of time and effort to get started and organized. Actually recording the book was only half the work!

First, I had to learn about the readers. Grandma has a Digital Talking Book (DTB) player that she got for free from the National Library Service of the Library of Congress. Here's the player description: http://www.loc.gov/nls/businessplan/playerdescription.html . These players now take USB memory, instead of the old cassettes.

The USB memory cartridge is a standard USB mass storage device in a specially shaped accessible plastic carrier. I bought mine from one of the links from the NLS page (the vendor was Perkins) for $14.00 for a 2GB device. I also bought the $5 cable thinking it was something special that I'd need to interface to the cartridge (having never seen a cartridge before), but it turned out to be nothing more than an ordinary USB extension cable. A cable is needed because the plastics of the cartridge carrier shield the USB connection so it won't plug directly into a laptop or PC port; but if you already have an extension cord laying around, you don't have to buy another one.

Then I had to learn what digital format the book should be recorded in. While the DTBs can play raw WAVs, MP3s, and other audio formats, I learned they work best with books described in the DAISY format. Daisy is an XML description of the audio book. It permits audio navigation by section (chapter), skip ahead and skip back by phrase (paragraph or sentence), and is specially designed for this purpose.

There were several commercial products you can use to record a book, and you can spend just about any amount of money you want on them. I wanted to use GPL software to help me record the book, as this isn't an area where I want to support profiteering. I found the Obi software from the Daisy consortium. http://www.daisy.org/obi It can do the recording capture as well as assemble the recorded fragments into the DAISY 3 format. It has algorithms that help you easily break up a recording into phrases. By inserting pauses while you speak, the software can identify those as separate phrases. And it's java, so it runs on any platform that supports audio.

Apart from that you need a quiet room to record in, a clear voice, a decent headset and microphone, and enough time to read the book. It took me quite a while. I'd say it was about 8 hours of recording to capture a two hour book, but it was my first attempt. And I got faster as I progressed, with fewer "umms" and "ahhs" that required me to go back and rerecord a phrase. Rather than try to read the whole book straight through and break it up later, I recorded and edited the audio on a chapter by chapter basis. This let me hear how I was doing so I could improve. I think a practiced speaker could do it much more quickly than I did, and in one take with just a few retakes for mistakes, but I'm certainly not that good yet.

When it was done, I exported the book in the Daisy 3 format, then copied the book files to the cartridge. I gave it to her for Christmas, never even having the chance to test it on a real DTB reader, but it worked fine. I asked her about it after Christmas, and she simply said she had read it one morning. All the work I had done with sections and phrases, none of that mattered to her, and she used none of it. A cassette tape would have sufficed for her. (She has no idea how much effort goes into producing an audio book, nor is she interested.) But I now have a DTB version of the book that is ready for distribution. I still need to contact the book's publisher to see if they're interested in it.

The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped provides recorded books and magazines at no cost through local libraries, see http://www.loc.gov/nls for the location of your nearest library. They are also a good source of information about aids like screen readers and screen magnifier software, as is your local affiliated library.

The National Federation of the Blind http://www.nfb.org/ is also a good source of information about helpful technology.

I know you said audio books were not your preferred solution but you should checkout the talking book program from the National Library Service, http://www.loc.gov/nls. The materials and equipment are provided free of charge to US residents and citizens living abroad. Another good source of information is the daisy consortium, http://www.daisy.org./ Daisy has developed standards and tools for accessibility. There are commercial products as well Humanware is probably the best known manufacturer but as I'm sure you are finding out these solutions can be quite expensive. A less expensive Android device could be another alternative as there are apps now being developed for assitive reading. Although, honestly iOS curently does a much better job of being accessible. I have heard the next version of Android will offer accessibilty improvements but that is probably 6-12 months away.

I wish TFA or the people who post articles about pending legislation would include the @#%^ bill number! It looks like this one is H.J.RES.37, in case any of you feel like writing your senator. (It would be delightful if we could slashdot Congress.)

For the purpose you describe -- casually browsing through a lot of versions of a song -- Youtube works pretty well. (They've gone back and forth over the years as far as hyper-vigiliance against possible copyright violations, and at the moment Google's pretty much looking the other way, but that could change.) But if it's truly public domain, you should be able use it however you want -- including performing it in public, sharing it, hosting it yourself -- without fear of legal reprisal. Availability on Youtube is a sorry substitute. It should be here.

And as far as the National Park analogy goes, visiting places like Yellowstone and Crater Lake is a lot less pleasant since Xanterra took over all the lodging and concessions, filling them with low-quality food and miserable, underpaid workers.

TL;DR version - this post is chock full of links, from a grab-bag of right-wing, left-wing, and non-partisan sources. If you only have time to read one, read the Cato Institute one. It clearly lays out the economics of nuclear power in toto, unlike all the other links that are merely documentation of individual points.

OK. Now, despite propaganda from pro-nuclear right-wing pundits, there simply is no ban on nuclear power plants in the USA. If there was such a ban, there would have to be some regulation or policy to say so, and there isn't. New reactors are on the way, according to the NRC licensing authorities.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

You can argue that the Clinton administration's refusal to relicense unsafe plants and active discouragement of subsidies was a de facto ban on new nuclear power sources, and I would tend to agree with that. But that argument only applies to the duration of Clinton's presidency.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+new+nuclear+plants

In 2005, as part of the infamous Cheney sellout of national energy policy in closed-door meetings with entrenched corporate powers, the economic landscape for nuclear was completely restructured.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0425-06.htm

The Price-Anderson act, originally a "temporary" 10-year measure to encourage the development of a nuclear power industry, was re-enacted - this time until 2025. Price-Anderson, incidentally, is a direct affront to core Libertarian principles - it caps liability for nuclear operators and forces taxpayers opposed to nuclear power to subsidize preventable failures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Per-watt subsidies for nuclear power were also enacted, in the form of 1.8-cent per kilowatt-hour tax credits from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation (costing a projected $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109UZ5s3O:e1304068:

This subsidy is necessary in order for nuclear-generated electricity to stay competitive with methane-powered generators, because of the total inability of the nuclear industry to deliver on the "energy too cheap to meter" promises they've been making since 1948.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740

In the 1980s government audits of nuclear operators determined that many of them were not setting aside decommissioning costs as required by law. The 2005 energy bill retroactively makes this legal, providing strong disincentives to any responsible operator willing to plan for the future. Allowing politically connected players to break lawful contracts with impunity is not only philosophically anti-Libertarian, it's anti-Socialist, too - I'd call it fascism.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109UZ5s3O:e1336416:

Occasionally you will hear claims that government over-regulation of the nuclear industry means that licenses and permits are difficult and expensive to maintain. In reality, the industry itself rewrote the rules for licensing application in the 1980s so that permits are cheap, long-lasting and do not require any real commitment. Later policy revisions go even further and reduce the total paperwork by two thirds as well as increasing the speed of rev

TL;DR version - this post is chock full of links, from a grab-bag of right-wing, left-wing, and non-partisan sources. If you only have time to read one, read the Cato Institute one. It clearly lays out the economics of nuclear power in toto, unlike all the other links that are merely documentation of individual points.

OK. Now, despite propaganda from pro-nuclear right-wing pundits, there simply is no ban on nuclear power plants in the USA. If there was such a ban, there would have to be some regulation or policy to say so, and there isn't. New reactors are on the way, according to the NRC licensing authorities.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

You can argue that the Clinton administration's refusal to relicense unsafe plants and active discouragement of subsidies was a de facto ban on new nuclear power sources, and I would tend to agree with that. But that argument only applies to the duration of Clinton's presidency.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+new+nuclear+plants

In 2005, as part of the infamous Cheney sellout of national energy policy in closed-door meetings with entrenched corporate powers, the economic landscape for nuclear was completely restructured.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0425-06.htm

The Price-Anderson act, originally a "temporary" 10-year measure to encourage the development of a nuclear power industry, was re-enacted - this time until 2025. Price-Anderson, incidentally, is a direct affront to core Libertarian principles - it caps liability for nuclear operators and forces taxpayers opposed to nuclear power to subsidize preventable failures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Per-watt subsidies for nuclear power were also enacted, in the form of 1.8-cent per kilowatt-hour tax credits from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation (costing a projected $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109UZ5s3O:e1304068:

This subsidy is necessary in order for nuclear-generated electricity to stay competitive with methane-powered generators, because of the total inability of the nuclear industry to deliver on the "energy too cheap to meter" promises they've been making since 1948.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740

In the 1980s government audits of nuclear operators determined that many of them were not setting aside decommissioning costs as required by law. The 2005 energy bill retroactively makes this legal, providing strong disincentives to any responsible operator willing to plan for the future. Allowing politically connected players to break lawful contracts with impunity is not only philosophically anti-Libertarian, it's anti-Socialist, too - I'd call it fascism.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109UZ5s3O:e1336416:

Occasionally you will hear claims that government over-regulation of the nuclear industry means that licenses and permits are difficult and expensive to maintain. In reality, the industry itself rewrote the rules for licensing application in the 1980s so that permits are cheap, long-lasting and do not require any real commitment. Later policy revisions go even further and reduce the total paperwork by two thirds as well as increasing the speed of rev

You could read a version of the bill that isn't formatted like it's perl:

Here

BTW, this looks to have been introduced in the House back on June 14. The corresponding Senate bill (the subject of this story) was introduced on June 15 and has been languishing in the Judiciary Committee since then.

Recording Title: Rose mousse
Musical group: Sousa's Band
Recording Date: 1900-10-06

Rights & Access

This recording is protected by state copyright laws in the United States. The Library of Congress has obtained a license from rights holders to offer it as streamed audio only. Downloading is not permitted. The authorization of rights holders of the recording is required in order to obtain a copy of the recording. Contact jukebox@loc.gov for more information.

"Why is there no political system anywhere where the campaigns are funded by a flat levy, and ALL levels of government have equal elections where union and private donations, as well as politician's OWN FINANCES are banned from participating?"

There are. France runs elections that way. "Campaign finance is strictly regulated. All forms of paid commercial advertisements through the press or by any audiovisual means are prohibited during the three months preceding the election. Instead, political advertisements are aired free of charge on an equal basis for all of the candidates on national television channels and radio stations during the official campaign."

It really works that way. French campaigns are short and intense. I've been in Paris for one. The official poster boards go up in sets, one board for each candidate, and the candidates poster boards go on them. The minor and major candidates get equal billing. Everybody makes their pitch on TV in their allotted time slots, and it's discussed to death in Le Monde and ranted about in Libe. Then the citizens vote. France uses a two-round presidential election; if nobody gets an absolute majority on round 1, there's a runoff two weeks later.

Since the lineage of the proposal was essentially republican (heck, it's nearly identical to the 1993 republican plan)

What was "the" 1993 Republican plan? I've read that some people claim the 2010 plan was similar to Senatar Chafee's (of Rhode Island) plan in 1993. But that didn't go anywhere. So it didn't experience the feedback from the public that the current health care "reform" did.

Further, from reading the summary of that bill, while it used excise taxes on employers who failed to comply, it didn't have similar enforcement provisions for individuals (which is one of the unconstitutional parts of Obamacare). So this lawsuit wouldn't have happened with the Republican plan of 1993.

With respect to Social Security "bonds", I wasn't speaking of "transfer" of these alleged bonds, but merely making them no longer exist. As to theft of trillions of dollars from workers paid into the program? That already happened.

The thing about the Social Security bonds is that they don't matter. How much is put in and paid out doesn't depend on this illusionary machinery. If the bonds were to go away in a legitimate way (say by Social Security running deficits for long enough that the bond amounts got paid out), then Social Security payments would probably be paid out of the general budget rather than being cut back as one would expect from the propaganda.

Similarly, if the general budget experiences serious trouble (such as it is today), then one can draw from the Social Security fund in various ways. The current gimmick is to tinker with the CPI.

The game's final cutscene will undoubtedly be the player receiving the Pulitzer Prize or possibly the Nobel Peace Prize for reporting atrocities. How could the game possibly end otherwise?

I don't know the provenance of either of those quotes, but no modern conservative would admire a man who cut God out of his bible. America was founded as a Christian nation by Christians for Christians!

BTW,

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

Jefferson, to Taylor, 1816. He has a number of other letters mulling the idea of asking the states to close the various private banks. The part about people ending up homeless does appear to be fabricated.

And here is the text of the bill in question S.1151.

In a first to file situation, Intel is free to patent ideas they didn't invent. The first to describe it to the government gets it.

That's, umm, an interesting interpretation of the actual law, which says:

"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--

                        `(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention "

So this means the concept of prior art is moot?

No.

It appears that the bill in question is H.R.1249 (TFA doesn't actually specify which bill they're talking about - and there are several versions floating around congress). The text of the bill concerning prior art is:

‘‘ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention."

Thus, prior art under the new law would be anything that was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Based on the current size of the Library of Congress, you'd need a RAID of 93 of these to store everything! And you'd need to increase that RAID by two drives every month to keep up!

The Federalist Papers are available for free, online, in their entirety. See for example http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html, or even via free reader apps on Android. Not sure why there's a need for a modernized version, considering we're specifically talking about what the Federalist papers said, not what their modern interpretation is.

Your idea of the Rule of Law is fine and dandy, but it's a shell game. All laws are men's laws, even the ones in the bible. The only thing that's up for discussion is whether we agree on the principles behind them. If the laws somehow aren't open for discussion, you are submitting yourself to someone else telling you what The Law is - and that could be anything (kill your firstborn, perhaps?). You cannot talk about The Law in the abstract without getting into specifics - otherwise, it's just mental masturbation worse than Hippies talking about Love And Peace. And that is exactly where it gets messy, and where the Republic of the Rule of Law variety either becomes a representative democracy or a dictatorship.

In other words there is no Law other than the Word of powerful men in robes

Very true. However, EVERY system degenerates into this. Unless, of course, you assume that all people can live in harmony, in which case there is no need for men in robes. The real question is who are these people, how did they get there, and is the system that appoints them arbiters of the law set up in such a way to minimize corruption and abuse?

I dunno, read it and you tell me:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR06407:@@@L&summ2=m&

Looks like it did though.

I'm reminded of two expressions (sort of polar opposites).

1. Living well doesn't make you live longer, it just makes it seem longer.

2. Eubie Blake - at his 100th birthday - "If I'd have known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself"...

You will care when interest rates rise for everyone from the local bonds building your schools to state bonds building roads and bridges because those levels of gov't are dependent on federal funds, that is taxes paid by state residents and laundered through the federal government and returned at varying ratios with strings attached. It may even effect the interest rate on your home mortgage if it's not fixed.

The ratings agencies have warned the feds for months. They wanted to see $4 trillion in cuts and only one plan offered that. It was the one called "Cut, Cap & Balance" and passed by the Republican-led House first with some Democrats joining in. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted immediately to table the bill. It never even got a debate.

The White House belittled the plan as "Duck, Dodge & Dismantle" when all the cuts talked about are reductions in automatic increases. Since the Budget Act of 1974, the federal government depends on "baseline budgeting" and today that means a guarantee that budgets will rise 7.5% over the prior year every year. We should be using "zero-based budgeting" where departments must justify every budget dollar.

We know from debt commissions and other studies, there are billions--maybe $100-200 billion according to the non-partisan GAO--in overlapping and duplicative spending but we have Democrats screaming nothing should be touched and anyone who wants spending reform is a "terrorist" (Vice Pres. Biden) or wants to "destroy" government (Minority Leader Pelosi). This is NOT helpful.

Republicans offered their long term reform ideas months ago in the form of the so-called "Ryan plan." Democrats offered criticism all year but no formal counter proposal. There was nothing in writing that could be "scored" by the CBO and Obama's budget received ZERO votes in the Senate. Senator Majority Leader Reid said it would be foolish for his congressional Democrats to offer a budget. That body hasn't passed a budget period in 829 days. Way to avoid responsibility and accountability!

Instead the president's party and its allies used the GOP proposal in divisive, misleading campaign ads. One even showed a doppelgänger of Congressman Ryan pushing an wheelchair-bound elderly woman over a cliff when the plan itself doesn't effect existing benefits for anyone 55 or older. Again, NOT helpful. (Hey, what happened to the "new tone" of "civility" after the Tuscan shooting?)

The president talks about "millionaires and billionaires" when the actual tax changes would effect, not those super rich alone, but persons making $200,000 or couples at $250,000. Small business people filing as S-corps or a cops and teachers in some high cost of living areas like NYC. Taxation needs fundamental reform not just higher rates on easy political targets who are also the most able to avoid taxation. Just as Ireland about Bono.

For anyone reading here who doesn't know and feels guilty a